/agdg/ - Amateur Game Development General

no

Define "soon".

Vid related was running at 30fps on a Titan (just Titan, no X/Black/whatever). If you bump down the resolution of the simulation you could probably run it at 60 on said Titan or 30 on a lesser card (but lower res). I imagine a 1070 (or whatever Nvidia's next line will be called) could probably run that specific example at 60, a Titan is pretty old by the time it's out. Series after will surely do so no problem.

The issue is when you need to simulate a lot more than that and you also have the rest of the game weighing on the GPU. All in all I'd say 5-7 years before we start seeing it used properly. You will probably be able to use reliably in a year or two assuming you build your game with that huge performance black hole in mind.

>>20718

>>20725

I suspect the main reason 3D games rarely simulate water, fire and smoke is the complexity in making them GAMEPLAY RELEVANT. That dragon example looks nice and all but what would you use that for? You can very easily create a flame thrower (or a fire breathing dragon) for your game right now, the flames on which don't look nearly as good of course, and have it set things ablaze. Noone's stopping devs from implementing the gameplay side of things right now. Collision physics would be a lot leaner for gameplay purposes than they have to be to get that volumetric simulation.

Reminder that nOvidia physX are and will always be a graphics gimmick with zero benefit to gameplay. Physics should be about interaction, not about looks. nOvidia doesn't give a fuck about gameplay, they want the screenshotfag audience.

My question is: does it matter? It can look good but to me this is the example of diminishing returns. Properly simulating fluid mechanics is heavy as fuck but it doesn't really add that much gameplay options, it just looks good. Is it the best investment for processing power? Instead of making the flames look better when they hit a solid object, you could try try to give an anathomy to that dragon and add variety to the combat.

>>20844

It's not a game I played much, but I actually thought the naval fighting and storms / water in Battlefield 4 was amazing. It was the only thing I really enjoyed about the game

I think there's definitely a place for it but you have a point with it having diminishing returns.

I think it has some untapped uses. But there's zero innovation in the AAA industry right now so we're not seeing anything

>>20753

Webm pls.

spewer

>>20843

>>20844

Try working with VFX and making a good looking dynamic fire then come back to me on how simulated smoke, water, and fire isn't good.

Also it does affect gameplay, just put half a second of thought into it and you should realize that.